Dismissed

Shri. Prabhakar Trimbak Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2014WP/453/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the acquisition of land. The petitioner, who had received compensation decades prior without raising a grievance, faced gross delay in filing the petition even after seeking information under RTI.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; petitioner directed to pay costs of Rs. 7,500 to the first respondent.

Shri. Prabhakar Trimbak Deshpande Vs State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(31)wp-453-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.453 OF 2014

¶4

Mr.Prabhakar T. Deshpande .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents

¶5

Mr.Nitin Gangal with Mr.Prasad K. Kulkarni, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶6

CORAM : A.S.OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATED : MARCH 12, 2014.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1 Heard learned appearing for the Petitioner.

¶9

2 The case of the petitioner is that a land held by him was notified for acquisition by a notification dated 8^th January 1971 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the said Act”). His case is that possession of the land was taken over in the year 1976. It is alleged that the acquisition was for public purpose of establishing a college. The prayer in the petition is for setting aside the acquisition and for a direction to the respondents to hand over the possession of the land in question to the petitioner. It is contended that the public purpose was never a genuine public purpose and the acquisition is illegal. The petition does not disclose whether any award under section 11 of the said Act has been made.

1/3

tilak

(31)wp-453-14

3 We find from the said petition that for the first time, a grievance was made by the petitioner by sending a letter dated 31^st January 1981 to the educational institution to which the same was allotted. The grievance made in the said letter is that the petitioner's land is not required by the said institution, and an attempt is being made to dispose of the same. In the said letter, he specifically stated that the said land may be returned to him by taking back the compensation received by him. Thus, the said letter indicates that the petitioner had already received the compensation in relation to the said land. It appears that by making an application dated 28^th March 2006 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner sought certain documents in relation to the acquisition. The communication dated 26^th April 2006 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2 cum Public Information Officer records that the record of the year 1976 is not available.

¶14

4 As stated earlier, letter dated 31^st January 1981 addressed by the petitioner clearly records that he has received the compensation for the acquired land. However, in the petition, the petitioner has not even disclosed the particulars of the award made under section 11 of the said Act. After 31^st January 1981, the petitioner has never made any grievance regarding any illegality in acquisition. Belatedly, in March 2006, an attempt was made by the petitioner to obtain documents in relation to the acquisition by applying under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said request was turned down on the ground that record of the year 1976 was not available. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed on 19^th December 2013. Not only that the petition suffers from gross delay but the petition does not disclose that the petitioner

2/3

tilak

(31)wp-453-14

had received the compensation in relation to the land in question. The petitioner ought to have disclosed that he had accepted the compensation on account of the acquisition of this suit land.

¶19

5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this case in the case of Shah Hyder Beig & ors vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors, 1999(4) Bom.C.R.146. We have perused the said decision. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Division Bench was of the view that delay will not come in the way of the petitioner. In the present case, the petition suffers from gross delay which has not been explained.

¶20

6 We, accordingly, reject the petition. We direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.7,500/ to the first respondent within a period of six weeks from today.

¶21

(A.A.SAYED, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

¶22

3/3

¶23

tilak

Shri. Prabhakar Trimbak Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prabhakar Trimbak Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Tukaram Shivling Lale Vs Ajit Ratanchand Shah and Ors.

Avinash Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Akhil Maharashtra Manav Hakka Adhikar Sangharsha Samitee, Upsamiti Sawantwadi, through President Vs Public Information Officer , Dist. Supply Officer Sindhudurg and Ors.

Shivajji Murlihar Bhosle and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raghunath Martand Gaikwad, through Aarti Sanjay Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Irrigation and Ors.

Mr. Subhash Ramkrishna Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.